And he won’t get elected. THAT’S the freakin’ problem!
YES. My President is, basically, my employee. I don’t care what he does in his private life, as long as he does his job.
I’m not saying he can’t go to church- but he can’t endorse a particular religion by power of his office. He can go to church- but why the heck invite the media? There needs to be a sharp dividing line between church and state- otherwise, atheists (and other non-Christians) will always have a harder time getting elected.
This is a statement of ideology in and of itself.
The religion question is always asked. We’ll have an atheist president when we have a majority atheist population.
Could you provide an example? I couldn’t find anything like that.
Which still does not constitute or indicate a culture.
Ah. So your criterion for being ‘atheist culture’ is ‘anything that talks non-disparagingly about atheism’. Gotcha.
I haven’t seen one in a while and couldn’t find it online but I remember seeing one in downtown Manhattan a few years back that was a 12 year old girl in a provocative barely clothed pose. Regardless we have plenty of 12 and 13 year old girls who are barely dressed in Vogue, or various other adverts all the time.
It certainly is one point of evidence.
My criteria for culture is common and shared beliefs or habits. The idea of shared literature points to there being a common culture. Just like there is an LGBT culture, or a Role-Playing Gamer culture.
The idea that a President should be religiously neutral is essentially saying that the President should be atheist or agnostic. A religious President cannot stop being religious when he steps into office. Also, it doesn’t violate the separation clause for their to be a religious President, as the separation clause only keeps away the establishment of a state religion, it doesn’t preclude politicians from making decisions based upon religious belief.
Oh, come off it. We had a Catholic President and will shortly have a Catholic Vice President, we very nearly had (in two separate elections) a Jewish Vice President and another Catholic President. A majority of the population does not need to agree with your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) for you to be elected. You do, however, need a large majority of the population not to be prejudiced against you for your beliefs or lack thereof, and that will, I think, not be true for atheists for a while.
The difference is more fundamental than the difference between various forms of Judaism and Christianity.
Yes, secular, if you must insist on it being any sort of ideology. I don’t care if the guy is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist, as long as he can do the job. That a Christian won’t vote for a Jew or atheist, even though they may be otherwise perfect to be President, is a failing on the Christian’s part.
Good job having no idea what the fuck child pornography is.
For the fifth time, people can, and do, agree without sharing a culture.
So there’s such a thing as ‘liberal culture’? I think more than beliefs or habits is needed.
Actually, no. The idea that a President should be religiously neutral is essentially saying that, on the job, the President should not be favoring one religion over another. He can do whatever he wants in his private life, which the Inauguration is not.
Did you miss my point, or are you ignoring it?
And there you go again thinking your view of pornography is the default view and should be accepted by such because it is within your common culture.
That’s true.
So how would you define culture?
I disagree, because his moral philosophy will be intrinsically tied to his religious belief, so the oath is actually the least of all possible encroachments of his religious belief on civic life.
Neither. Not voting for someone because they are atheist isn’t bigotry, it’s voting your own interests. Why should I vote for someone who doesn’t represent my beliefs?
Are you in the habit for voting for people who don’t represent your interests?
Wait… are you saying that morals are directly related to religious belief?
Yes, start bailing the straw.
How about this:
Darn that Gotcha Dictionary.
Because it indicates malicious small-mindedness that looks for petty excuses to take offense.
Is it that important to you that your elected officials be Christian? I think most people, no matter what their personal religious leanings, share certain aspects of social philosophy.
No, but I certainly don’t assume that people who are different from me don’t represent my interests. I’m sure Rick Boucher, Jim Webb, and Mark Warner are all Christians. I’m equally sure that they represent me, because I know how they feel on certain issues that are important to me.
Works for me.
Yeah, atheists are the ones who are small minded. Remind me again who invented the “War on Christmas”?
No - we live in a society where government isn’t supposed to interfere with religion.
Obama has every right to mention God when he takes the Oath. What he can NOT do is require Americans to mention God, nor can he prevent Americans from mentioning God.
Not surprisingly, you didn’t really answer the question. You said, “…his moral philosophy will be intrinsically tied to his religious belief…”
ARE you, in fact, saying that morals are directly related to religious belief?
No, it’s not terribly important to me. I probably wouldn’t vote for a devout Muslim though.
Right ok. Would someone being an atheist inspire a feeling of affection for someone? Would you want to see that atheist politician succeed because he is an atheist?